From radio news this morning-the Commisioner of the Met has critisised Birmingham Police for using a Taser Stun Gun on a bomb suspect-he said it was "very dangerous". So what does that make shooting someone 8 times in the head then?

A damned sight less dangerous to all concerned except the one who looks like a jihad loon with a backpack.

Click to expand...

On two counts;

The chappy is definitely out of the action and you're not pumping a hod load of electricity through the det and charge that's strapped to him. Hell, if mobile phone radiation is a sweating point around batsim...

Anyway the

maninblack said:

...jihad loon with a backpack.

Click to expand...

is going to a nice 'garden' somewhere if he get's to die in the commission of the struggle for Allah even if he's not yet managed to pull the pin. So actually everyone's a winner (unless you happen to be an illegal on an expired visa who runs in the face of 'Stop! Armed police!').

The suspect as I undestand it, was clean when zapped. It was a judgement call by the people through the door. They had the option to fill him full of holes, or a chance to take him alive . Split-second decision by the lead, took it, good call. We now have a live "alleged" bomber to play with.

Bit late for my comment but anyway - think this was a case of a 'Mouth-Engaged-Brain-Not' comment; Sir Ian said his comment on a special BBC1 program last night - sort of like a Question Time on the London Bombings. He was posed the question from an audience member asking why didn't the police officer chasing the deceased Brazillian guy use the Taser on him instead of the gun - as some witnesses had said that he had either tripped onto the ground or was dragged to the ground - therefore in 'perfect' position for the use of the Taser. My guess is that Sir Ian answered that question posed on that situation only - not thinking that other people would be asking 'well why the heck WMP used it in their arrest?' I'm not sure if he had said anything directed at the WMP actions.

Total bolox dont know any thing about the guy but he did say it would not be normal to tazer a suspected bomber but he was not in posetion of the full facts of the situation dont see that as a critisism do you?

Having watched "Questions Of Security" on which Blair made his remarks, it must be said he did say that The Met wouldn't have used a Taser for the reasons already discussed, but he wasn't in full posession of the facts, implying (to me anyway) that there may have been int that the suspect wasn't wired up to a large collection of party poppers, but if there wasn't WTF were brummie plod arrsing about at?
Incidentally, the 'carefully selected to be demographically representative' audience, seemed to contain a remarkably large proportion of non-white, non-British people, when I was under the impression that white anglos make up about 90% of the population. And an awful lot of Guardianista handwringers seemed to be in attendance. Funny that.

Usual BBC audience selection criteria for this type of thing. Remember how unrepresentative of the electorate all the political debating show audiences were around the time of the elections? I am starting to resent paying a licience fee